IFR with a VFR GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Then you have identified yourself as an idiot.

A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.

I expected more of you.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.
I expected more of you.

Peter, that was where you went wrong.

Gerald

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.

I expected more of you.


That's not a personal attack. You took an idiotic position. I even asked
you to confirm your position, and you did. Idiotic positions are taken by
idiots.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

That's not a personal attack. You took an idiotic position. I even asked
you to confirm your position, and you did. Idiotic positions are taken by
idiots.

Don't try to kiss and make up. We need time apart.

--
Peter
If you love someone, set him free.























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. Hilarious.

To bring it back on topic, basically Mr. McNicoll does not think the
requirements of the TSO pertaining to enroute IFR navigation adds to the
safety of the flight. One of the things I like about aviation is that most
everything in the regs (notice I stated MOST and not ALL) has a good reason
behind it. As with regulations in general, a good part of the stipulations
will not apply to the majority of the situations. As a result, many folks
think they're "idiotic."

I see it simply as part of the attitude of "I've done it a hundred times
before so it's perfectly safe."

Marco Leon

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Don't try to kiss and make up. We need time apart.

--
Peter
If you love someone, set him free.























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...

To bring it back on topic, basically Mr. McNicoll does not think the
requirements of the TSO pertaining to enroute IFR navigation adds to the
safety of the flight. One of the things I like about aviation is that most
everything in the regs (notice I stated MOST and not ALL) has a good
reason
behind it. As with regulations in general, a good part of the stipulations
will not apply to the majority of the situations. As a result, many folks
think they're "idiotic."

I see it simply as part of the attitude of "I've done it a hundred times
before so it's perfectly safe."


Do you see any hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight?

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Do you see any hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight?

Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.

I'll leave it to the safety experts to determine or estimate the
increased risk.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.


What hazardously misleading information?



I'll leave it to the safety experts to determine or estimate the
increased risk.


I posed a similar question to the safety experts some years ago, none could
identify any risk.